The look at the Dutch moral panic is informative. The author’s thesis is that the Dutch moralists were incorrect in accusing the Dutch youth of decadency. The authors are able to show that the youth were decadent. They show that the moralists had a political agenda. They even show that the youth weren’t beyond Dutch societal limits.
While the thesis is informative, I dislike the bias of the authors. This bias is most in evidence in how the authors judge the morals by today’s standards. For example, the moralists slandered women for indecency, and accused them of nudity. The authors defend the women by explaining “most likely, the only nudity these women were guilty of was wearing sleeves shortened to the elbow.” In another instance the authors are explain how moralists hated long hair on men. They give examples of the older generation having long hair when they were young, and explain this double standard by supposing the “aged men…were probably jealous of [the] young men.” Both of these conclusions suffer from two weaknesses. First, a “most likely,” and a “probably” screams improper research. These assumptions may be correct, but there is no evidence. Second, the authors do not address how the culture would have seen sleeves to the elbow, or how whether thinning hair was disdained. In both of these examples the authors assume that what seems plausible by today’s standards was true of the standards of 1650’s Amsterdam.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree that the research seems to have holes. The authors make the statement many times that the Dutch youth "had too much leisure time." However, I never really see the explanation as to why the have too much leisure time. The authors discuss that because of the booming economy, everyone had more money, and more parents wanted their young adults to have an aristicratic upbringing, but that relationship is never explicitly made. I don't honestly know if that is where the author is tring to go.
I did find it really interesting how the authors discuss that the parents of the Dutch youth encourage the exact things that are upsetting the moralists. For example, parents would make dance lessons part of a child formal education even though the local parish priest may say, "The many steps one dances equal the leaps made going towards hell."
If nothing else, I am really glad historians finally understand that viewing age is essential to understanding different societal developments.
While I agree that the authors made a strong argument about decadent youth, I felt as though I was reading an article from my homeward newsletter about how the youth are growing up to be ruinous to society. The authors did well to contrast with our time the details of using September 11, 2001 to condemn society for the regression of morals.
I thought that the breakdown of sections was a good way to present their point, but Roberts and Groenendijk made an interesting argument that pointed to the ever-growing rift between clergy and the affluent lifestyle. Dance was just one example, with parents putting their children in dance classes while the clergymen condemned the act of dancing.
All in all, it was a quick read because I believe I have read something similar about the disgraces of youth and moral indecency in the eyes of a minister of any faith in most every era of study.
Looking at Amsterdam today, perhaps those in early Holland had a point, though.
I also thought it was interesting that the ministers used the youth as a scapegoat because they did not want to alienate their flocks by damning them and their actions directly. Adults were often participating in some of these same supposedly sinful activities. Ministers were careful to instead of estranging themselves by from their congregation to rally them so the will of the people could be used as a bargaining chip in city hall and the courts.
I think one of the main points the article has to make is that the moral panic in Holland was not entirely based on the youth, but is evidence of continual struggle between church and state. The reading says, "The Reformed Church had little clout, and the only political platform they had was in the sermons from the pulpit." More than a commentary about age as a new category, I saw this article as evidence for how religious and state institutions vie for the primary position of authority in people's lives.
Post a Comment